Foot on base

[Robert G]

R2 on second, F1 try's pickoff as R2 beats the throw & tag but is foot is on F4 foot that is on the base.
F4 tags him again.
Is he safe or out?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Robert G

R2 on second, F1 try's pickoff as R2 beats the throw & tag but is foot is on F4 foot that is on the base.
F4 tags him again.
Is he safe or out?

If the runner is legally blocked from the base by a fielder with the ball and this prevents the runner from tagging the base, then the runner is out if tagged before touching the base.

In this case we have a foot blocking the runner from tagging the base.

Is he safe or out?

[DG]

FED change this year. Fielder must have the ball to block a base or obstruction is called. Not clear here whether fielder had the ball so can't tell if he is out or advanced to 3B (if a FED game).

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by DG

FED change this year. Fielder must have the ball to block a base or obstruction is called. Not clear here whether fielder had the ball so can't tell if he is out or advanced to 3B (if a FED game).

I agree, thats what I meant by "legally" but you explained it better.

Thanks

[Daryl H. Long]

Think about this.

Bases are 15 inches square (NF 1-2-9)
A size 16 shoe is 12.5 inches long.
To totally block the base a player would have to wear a size 24 shoe.
Probability of a player in HS having a foot this big = ~0%

Solution: Runner is out by being tagged while foot touching the base.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Think about this.

Bases are 15 inches square (NF 1-2-9)
A size 16 shoe is 12.5 inches long.
To totally block the base a player would have to wear a size 24 shoe.
Probability of a player in HS having a foot this big = ~0%

Solution: Runner is out by being tagged while foot touching the base.

So if F1 blocks the back 12.5 inches of the bag on a pick to 1B you are going to rule an out because the front 2.5 inches was "available" to the runner diving back to the bag?

I don't believe this was FED's intent for the rule change.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by DG

So if F1 blocks the back 12.5 inches of the bag on a pick to 1B you are going to rule an out because the front 2.5 inches was "available" to the runner diving back to the

I don't believe this was FED's intent for the rule change.

Yes. Rule the runner OUT.

To the contrary FED is very specific that the situation you describe above is legal.

It is not illegal to block a base with or without the ball. The key to obstruction per 2-22-3 is the wording "deny access". In the 2008 NFHS/Referee Baseball guide it is state on page 5 "The committee used "deny access" instead of "block" because it is possible for a fielder to block the base without denying access." Read Play 2 and the ruling carefully saying that to partially block the bag is legal.

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.
See also Case 8.3.2 Situation L.

Deny access means ALL

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Bren

Disagree, Mr. LONG, 3.5" is NOT good enough.

Math quiz.

15" - 12.5" = 2.5"

Case 8.3.2 Sit G and Case8.3.2 Sit L agree with me.

And if 2.5" is good enough 3.5" surely is.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Bren

Disagree, Mr. LONG, 3.5" is NOT good enough.

Of course it is!! (please re-assure us. please!) haha

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Yes. Rule the runner OUT.

To the contrary FED is very specific that the situation you describe above is legal.

It is not illegal to block a base with or without the ball. The key to obstruction per 2-22-3 is the wording "deny access". In the 2008 NFHS/Referee Baseball guide it is state on page 5 "The committee used "deny access" instead of "block" because it is possible for a fielder to block the base without denying access." Read Play 2 and the ruling carefully saying that to partially block the bag is legal.

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.
See also Case 8.3.2 Situation L.

Deny access means ALL

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.

This is not the way it's being interpreted. The defense doesn't get to completely decide which "access" the runner gets. If the natural slide is to the back of the base and the runner heads there, I'm calling obstruction.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This is not the way it's being interpreted. The defense doesn't get to completely decide which "access" the runner gets. If the natural slide is to the back of the base and the runner heads there, I'm calling obstruction.

There's some FED wording somewhere to the effect that "even if the defense blocks that part of the base the runner want to go to, it's not obstruction if the defense allows access to another part of the base."

Again, though, I think the FED did NOT do a very good job with this particular change.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's some FED wording somewhere to the effect that "even if the defense blocks that part of the base the runner want to go to, it's not obstruction if the defense allows access to another part of the base."

Again, though, I think the FED did NOT do a very good job with this particular change.

It's a good thing obstruction's a judgment call since I have been and will continue to call it the same as I do in a college game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's some FED wording somewhere to the effect that "even if the defense blocks that part of the base the runner want to go to, it's not obstruction if the defense allows access to another part of the base."

Again, though, I think the FED did NOT do a very good job with this particular change.

This is consistent with what Kyle McNeely told me, namely that if the fielder does not have the ball "the defense must allow access to the base, but not necessarily the runner's preferred access."

I interpret "access" to mean that the runner can reach the base with a hand or foot (whichever is sliding in). Both hands and feet are larger than 2.5", so if that's all the runner's getting we probably have OBS.

[CO ump]

I saw this situation early in the year, I was PU
1st inning, R1 takes his lead, F3 straddles the bag maybe 6" into the baseline.
A lazy pickoff throw and R1 comes back standing up. Sees F3 blocking the bag w/o ball and too late to slide. Pulls up and steps around as F3 gets ball and makes tag.
My P calls obstruction and awards 2nd. DC says it's not obstruction runner had total access if he slid. My P insists that it's OB and tells DC coach it will continue to be obstruction the rest of the day.

What do you guys think.

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I saw this situation early in the year, I was PU
1st inning, R1 takes his lead, F3 straddles the bag maybe 6" into the baseline.
A lazy pickoff throw and R1 comes back standing up. Sees F3 blocking the bag w/o ball and too late to slide. Pulls up and steps around as F3 gets ball and makes tag.
My P calls obstruction and awards 2nd. DC says it's not obstruction runner had total access if he slid. My P insists that it's OB and tells DC coach it will continue to be obstruction the rest of the day.

What do you guys think.

If F3 is straddling, I got no OBS. Play on. In the CS&FP rule book, R1 should be on the ground when the play is that close.

In general, I am reluctant to call OBS when a defensive player is roughly where s/he should be. R1 is out in this sitch, IMO, but HTBT.

My fifth of a dime.

Ace in CT